more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 27 Apr 2010 09:30 On Apr 26, 2:44 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Apr 26, 1:57 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On Apr 25, 10:46 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 5:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Mr. Obama and his co-conspirators swore on a stack of Bibles that > > > > Obamacare cost less than $940B for the first ten years. Real cost for > > > > the 1st decade of full implementation is estimated by several sources-- > > > > not me--at $2.5T. > > Your reports say $311 billion dollars, not 2.5 trillion - where do you > get the extra $2,2 trillion dloolars from? I'm beginning to think that, for whatever reason, you simply aren't able to process all this, and that I was unkind to call you lazy. I'm sorry. I know you've been through a lot recently, and I hope you're feeling okay. Here's the overview: Rounding to one significant figure, Obamacare was billed as costing $900B, which was to be paid for by $500B in Medicare cuts and $400B in new taxes. Since Medicare reimbursements are already so low that doctors see Medicare patients at a loss, many have criticized those cuts as unrealistic, especially since, in the same time as passing this Obamacare, the Democrats were passing a separate bill called the "Medicare fix" to reinstate those same "cuts." So, after some jiggling, a number of people have calculated that most of the fictional "savings" don't exist, and, contrary to Obama's assurances, that the plan is net negative by quite a lot--it increases the deficit. I gave you 3 articles explaining that from various viewpoints. The one article you liked, from the LA Times, spins a hope-n-change headline: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/22/nation/la-na-0423-hhs-healthcare-20100423 "Health bill may mean lower Medicare premiums," but, even *their* byline says: "But an independent federal report says it will also drive up overall U.S. healthcare costs." So, as I'd posted, the $311B is *excess* cost, above and beyond the $900B price tag that was advertised. The AP article I cited (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ us_health_care_law_costs) spins that as a fraction of total national spending: "The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent." but you have to understand that the increase is a) excess cost, b) as a result of this bill, and therefore c) properly attributed to this bill; IOW, as I'd said, the bill already a) costs 1/3rd more than the $900B Obama said it did, and b) there is no net savings from Obamacare--Obamacare costs more. The few real reductions in Medicare spending come, roughly, from actual cuts in service that aren't fixed by the "Medicare fix"... "The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors." --AP What may have confused you is that there are three sets / categories of estimates of the cost of Obamacare. In the 1st set, all the figures above relate to a) the on-budget cost, b) to the federal government only, c) during the next ten years, d) during which Obamacare is really only fully operative for the last 2 years. This set / category of estimates does not include the increased cost imposed on the American people of the higher premiums they must pay for mandated extensions in coverage. A 2nd set / category of estimates in the vicinity of ~$2.4T figures are for 2010-2019, including the costs to Americans personally. A 3rd set / category of estimates are out there that figure the cost of Obamacare itself--without including the cost to the public--is about $2.5T during the first 10 years it's fully operational (roughly 2017-2026, depending on who's estimating). For a litany of reasons, the assumptions behind all 3 of these categories of estimates are absurdly low, and the actual cost in real life should be expected to be considerably more. I hope that helps. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 27 Apr 2010 09:40 On Apr 26, 11:49 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >On Apr 23, 10:30 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Take away more of his excuses, post a link for him and email him a copy > >> of the result from the link. > > >It's not my purpose to find Bill a Bill-approved journalist to pre- > >chew his cud for him. As for myself, why on earth would I depend on a > >journalism major with half my wits and a quarter my experience to do > >my thinking for me? > > Easy there, James, i am on your side. I have noticed that you have been > able to pin Bill far better than most of us most of the time. I really, > really appreciate the way you have examined the scam. Sorry Joseph, I wasn't barking at you, but indirectly at Bill. I'd given him plenty enough info to go on, and didn't feel obliged to answer his accusations. He should do his homework before calling someone else a liar. I actually research this stuff, I don't just make it up. Sometimes-- not often--I make mistakes, and I appreciate being corrected, but Bill was just grousing. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: John Larkin on 27 Apr 2010 14:54 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:16:41 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:02:42 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>As long as human personality is what it is, and lacking active damping >>mechanisms, we will continue to have destructive bubbles. > > > Fits your stupidity to a tee. Read the books. You do read books? John
From: John Larkin on 27 Apr 2010 14:56 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:17:45 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:02:42 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >>That's what McDonalds are for. >> >>John > > > Go ahead, Johnny. Eat McD for the next ten years every day. See if >your arteries don't plaque up. Larkin is yet again... retarded. I don't think I've eaten at a McDonalds in the USA in years. They can be comforting when you're in England and crave some USian food. Lately we like In-n-Out for classic burger snacks. John
From: Spehro Pefhany on 27 Apr 2010 16:18
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:56:58 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:17:45 -0700, Archimedes' Lever ><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > >>On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:02:42 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>That's what McDonalds are for. >>> >>>John >> >> >> Go ahead, Johnny. Eat McD for the next ten years every day. See if >>your arteries don't plaque up. Larkin is yet again... retarded. > >I don't think I've eaten at a McDonalds in the USA in years. They can >be comforting when you're in England and crave some USian food. > >Lately we like In-n-Out for classic burger snacks. > >John Mmm... 'animal style' fries. |